Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[turin]

Dissident Dan,
I cannot tell you what your own opinion is. If you do not agree that hate is more permanent than the pain from a hammer, then I do not think that there is any way to convince you otherwise. My arguments are based fundamentally on introspection and subordinately on induction. If you tell me that the pain of whacking your thumb with a hammer is no different than the feeling of hate, then I must accept either that this is your truth or that you are lying. The latter is not productive to the analysis. The former is incontrovertible to me.

In short, I consider this issue intransigent.

I feel I should also add that it is not my intention to disparage your own introspection or contribution to the discussion. I am merely conceding your prerogative thereto.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, usually the hate feeling subsides once the object of the hate is no longer present. Also, I wasn't referring just to hate or anger, but the range of feelings that we don't call "physical" feelings--for example, the feeling of humor that makes you laugh, which is pretty short-lived.

Obvisously, each experience has its own character, and so hitting your thumb is different from hate is different from humor is different from melancholy is different from a massage. But I have yet to see some great dividing characteristic between the two types that you laid out. From what I can tell, it's merely that we perceive one type as existing in "the body" while one is existing in "the mind". Of course, this is all an illusion, as feelings of all characters reside in the brain (have you ever heard of the "phantom pains" of people who have lost limbs?). All are subjective experiences that require a conscious entity to experience them if they are to exist.

 

[ShawnD]

Last friday there was a rerun of Last Call with Carson Daily and Julia Styles was the guest (April 7, 2004). She said she was a vegan but gave that up because she wasn't feeling healthy and would just faint from time to time .

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

 

[turin]

From what I can tell, it's merely that we perceive one type as existing in "the body" while one is existing in "the mind". Of course, this is all an illusion, ... (have you ever heard of the "phantom pains" of people who have lost limbs?). All are subjective experiences that require a conscious entity to experience them if they are to exist.

I totally agree. Thus the impass. Perhaps we have different serotonin mechanisms. I am OCD. But I can't help feel a bit skeptical about the neurophysiological issue.

... feelings of all characters reside in the brain ...

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you equating the mind with the brain? What are "characters?"

 

[motai]

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

It may, it may not. Its like slavery. Slavery was used for thousands of years and even now it is occurring in odd portions of the world even though it is widely condemned by Western society.

Then again, since most animals that are sent to slaughter are penned up, wouldn't they be considered slaves held against their own will?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you equating the mind with the brain? What are "characters?"

Yes, I am equating mind with brain. (I personally do not believe in any metaphysical mind.) By character, I meant "distinguising feature" (dictionary.com). You can replace "characters" with "types". I was not using a possessive "of", but an "of" that means "composed or made from".

What this all boils down to is that I do not see any significant or relevant difference to the different types of pains and pleasures. They are all subjective experiences that have (positive and/or negative) values, and there is no apparent use in dividing among "physical"/"psychological", complex/simple, or anything of the nature, except to note that it is harder to decipher some experiences than it is to decipher others through observation.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Last friday there was a rerun of Last Call with Carson Daily and Julia Styles was the guest (April 7, 2004). She said she was a vegan but gave that up because she wasn't feeling healthy and would just faint from time to time .

My guess is that she wasn't eating very much at all, vegan or not. It is possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet, but they are not necessarily so, and cases like her are not the norm, judging from my own experience with myself and others whom I know. I have been vegan for 2 years, and I have not had a single problem with it. I eat a varied diet with legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains. I also take a mutlivitamin.

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

1) That question is very hard to answer. None of us know the future.
2) I am concerned with making that hypothetical a reality. As such, I want to address the question of "Should we eat meat?" in the negative in order to help make the answer to the question "Will we stop eating meat?" be positive. Rather than just wondering and waiting, I want to be active in making that future happen.
3) This is a forum for intellectual curiosity, and people will ask what questions interest them.

 

[maximus]

I don't you think you can assume evolution intended us to eat meat. If we trace evolution backward for most primates, both on the Prosimian and Anthropoid sides, you find very little meat eating even among the hominoids. Chimps, who share 98% of our protein and DNA identity, only eat flesh occasionally.

this is true, though misleading. we followed in the footsteps of this typical primate behavious until at a given point of time not known exactly to this day, we strayed from the path of a true primate in the sense of a territorial, gathering herbavour (with the occasional taste of meat) to a carnivorous primate. it was the blending of these two lifestyles (the primates giving intelligence and territorialism and the carnivour line giving social cooperation and hierarchy) that made us who we are. NOTE: this version of the fossil record tale is a highly simplified interpretation.

 

[hitssquad]

Reification of g

Yes, I am equating mind with brain.

A fresh corpse may have a brain, but no mind. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the literature and discussion on reification of g.

 

[Dissident Dan]

A fresh corpse may have a brain, but no mind. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the literature and discussion on reification of g.

I don't know what you are mentioning genetic correlations to intelligence for. By brain, of course I meant functioning brain. Just as a computer does not compute without electricity, neither does a brain (and there are other things, ,of course, besides electricity needed).

Anyway, I think that we are getting off track. This tangent got started when I was referring to the fact that all experiences (feelings) are psychological in nature, and there is no categorization presented that is relevant to valueing different experiences.

The moral issue rests on the ability to experience (feel). A creature with the ability to experience deserves consideration, regardless or race, species, etc. All known methods of determining sentience (not level of cognition, but just plain existence of sentience--ability to experience) do not show a difference between humans and many other animals, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and more.

 

[hitssquad]

Iffy

One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

After all, if is the middle of life.

 

[Vance]

I am so sorry, may i ask a question as to why this thread was created and why has it lasted so long ?

I am honestly not trying spoil your fun or waning your enthusiasm for more inputs on this interesting topic, I just would like to find out a reasonable way of explaining how things are going on and to understand more about what things will get moving on later...

thank you!

 

[hitssquad]

Interspecies hedonics

I am so sorry, may i ask a question as to why this thread was created

It was created because of an observation of inconsistency between stated values and values put into action.

how things are going on

Dan summed it up in the contingency, "If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience."


...And he continued stating this contingency, with:

"Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights. As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society. In this case, you would not see the conditional that I stated as applying, since no one really has rights in the first place.

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals."


So, as Dan says (even though he seems to have confused the word "relevant" with the word "discrete"), where we are in this thread is we have all agreed that there is no intrinsic reason not to eat meat.

what things will get moving on later...

Later on, Dan will be enlightened as to the differences between adequate and optimal nutrition, and why a society and its most socially responsible members might choose the latter over the spreading of a hedonistic pact as far and as widely as possible.

 

[hitssquad]

Are plants really nonsentient

The moral issue rests on the ability to experience (feel). A creature with the ability to experience deserves consideration, regardless or race, species, etc.

Before (here and here), you said that this was conditional upon rights also being granted to humans and for the reason of sentience in humans.

[rewording:][/color]Before (here and here), you said that this was conditional upon rights also being granted, for the reason of their respective sentience, to humans.

All known methods of determining sentience (not level of cognition, but just plain existence of sentience--ability to experience) do not show a difference between humans and many other animals, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and more.

There may not be a discrete difference between the sentience of animals and that of plants, regardless of any such being detectable by current instruments combined with current statistical technologies.

 

[Vance]

Thanks hitssquad,
I think comparison between human and animal only comes into being when there are real technical, scientific problems that need to consider or only when we, human go mad about each other...Thinking so far and hard about this and that actually won't get you any farther than just waste your time and your mind...I love small lovely animals, I have 2 white rabbits...They are my "best friends"...lol but I never say that they are not animals. My grandfather used to raise lots of pigs, I love the black dotted one but oneday, she got sick and were to get killed. I cried the whole night... Sounds crazie ?? Yes, it might sound crazie to some, but to others it mightnot. Eating meat or not is not a problem really, thefact out there is that Muslim people don't quite eat meat right? But they still live their lives day after day. The only real, pratical problem now is that "Can you put food on your table ? If you can, how and what way ?"
Animals can have rights if you, humans want to give them some rights. You could[/color] say animals have rights like humans do, this also means i think you already realize rights that they should have, but since we, human, are upper and highest leveled creatures, we can still get those rights back. That means animals actually have no rights, it is only because you think so, you want to make it fair and good for all animals and such a way of thinking about animal nowadays is really important and really respectable anyway. But Human is human, Animal is Animal...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Dan summed it up in the contingency, "If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience."

I wasn't saying that other animals having rights depends on human animals having rights. I was saying that if rights exist, both humans and animals have rights for the same reasons.
It's not humans rights->animal rights, but sentience->human rights and sentience->animal rights.
The "if" was to refer to address the fact that some people don't believe in the idea of rights at all. My whole point is that it is arbitrary discrimination to provide consideration (whether in the form of "rights" or not) to consider the interests of human animals and not of other animals.

So, as Dan says (even though he seems to have confused the word "relevant" with the word "discrete"),

No, I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

where we are in this thread is we have all agreed that there is no intrinsic reason not to eat meat.

I would be careful before putting words in others' mouths...
While there may be no intrinsic reason (because the only intrinsic values are those of experience), there are consequential reasons (ethics, health, environment--actually the health one might be considered intrinsic) not to. But that is the case with nearly everything that we don't do.

Later on, Dan will be enlightened as to the differences between adequate and optimal nutrition, and why a society and its most socially responsible members might choose the latter over the spreading of a hedonistic pact as far and as widely as possible.

It appears to me that an animal-inclusive diet cannot reach as healthy a level as a non-animal (mainly plants) diet. Adopting a vegetarian diet will generally cause a person to eat more plant sources that provide a variety of nutrients that are generally lacking in a typical western diet. Vegetarian is more optimal than meat-inclusive.

 

[hitssquad]

The meat-eating question in terms of cost-effective optimal health, anti-senescence

It appears to me that an animal-inclusive diet cannot reach as healthy a level as a non-animal (mainly plants) diet. Adopting a vegetarian diet will generally cause a person to eat more plant sources that provide a variety of nutrients that are generally lacking in a typical western diet. Vegetarian is more optimal than meat-inclusive.

There are several non-essential amino acids -- generally present in greater amounts in meat than than in vegetarian foods -- that consistently show a health-positive response in experimental animals fed these amino acids in generous quantities.

This life extensionist says he consumes a largely vegetarian diet in addition to a massive supplement regimen, but that some meat added to the veggies is the best bet he can figure out presently for maximum aging-curve squaring. As you can see, he consumes small amounts of chicken, turkey, sardines, cheese, salmon, "canned meat," eggs, and it looks like probably various meats when he dines out. In addition, he daily consumes 26 grams of (probably 80% or above WPC) whey protein. (Whey protein is a byproduct of the cheese-making industry.)


Most life extensionists seem to consume diets similar to that referenced above.


One potential problem with meat may be caloric density vs. non-amino-acid/non-peptide antioxidant density (there are physiologically important antioxidants in meat, such as the peptide carnosine, and the amino acids taurine and glycine). Because of this caloric density, perhaps less veggies, herbs, and spices may be consumable by a heavy meat eater during a typical day.

But, as far as general healthiness of largely meat vs. largely or completely veggie, one factor that may make a veggie diet typically healthier may be that meat is often cooked a lot longer, and hence it has a chance to oxidize and glycate (glycation is protein crosslinking; crosslinked protein is extremely biologically reactive in vivo and a contributor to biological aging, both when that protein that crosslinks is already part of the body and when it is protein consumed). Cooking meat as carefully and gently as possible, and especially in the presence of antioxidants and antiglycation agents such as the typical array of Italian and Indian spices (as well as specialty chemicals such as aminoguanidine, available from chemical supply houses).

Also, part of why meat may be less healthy may be the inexpensive way it is raised. There are specialty farms that try to raise healthier meat. Eating this meat is an option for people who may choose to spend a little more to increase the quality (and/or reduce the cruelty) of the meat they eat (or the eggs or the milk, as there are farms that specialize in healthier, less-cruel eggs and milk).


So, it is not necessarily the meat itself that makes an animal products inclusive diet less healthy, and including some meat may be a cost-effective way (a pure vegetarian could https://www2.acadia.net/cgi-bin/BAC/web_store.cgi?product=Amino_Acids separately {though perhaps at greater cost} any chemical-factory-produced amino acids {or any of several other typical meat constituents} he might want want) to get close to an optimum anti-senescence diet/regimen.

 

[Vance]

See the farmers from different parts of the world ?
>>>>http://www.ifap.org/develop.html
I don't like people eating any small lovely animals but if you like rabbits
>>>>http://www.pan-am.uniserve.com/pg000031.htm

Originally posted by hitssquad
Also, part of why meat may be less healthy may be the inexpensive way it is raised. There are specialty farms that try to raise healthier meat. Eating this meat is an option for people who may choose to spend a little more to increase the quality (and/or reduce the cruelty) of the meat they eat (or the eggs or the milk, as there are farms that specialize in healthier, less-cruel eggs and milk).

An example for the above quote is the following file about Chicken
>>>>www.investmongolia.com/p52.pdf[/URL]

 

[hitssquad]

Free-range farming

An example for the above quote is the following file about www.investmongolia.com/p52.pdf[/URL] family farm is more like what I had in mind:


[list]We presently raise 350 free range chickens in moveable coops and are hoping to increase the number next year.

We are constantly selling out and turning customers away so if you are interested in fine tasting chicken you need to contact us early to reserve your birds.

Chickens on grass, in coops built with no floor.

Once a day the coop are moved ahead far enough to allow the chickens access to fresh grass and insects. A furniture cart is used to pull the coop ahead and the birds quickly learn to pick up their feet and move along with it.

A second cart at the rear allows the coop to roll easily. You can see the grass is well eaten each day and the birds are healthy.

The birds are put into the coops at 3 weeks and spend the next 7 weeks there. The coops are removed daily. They receive fresh water twice daily as well as non-medicated chicken feed. They average 7 lbs per bird when dressed.[/list]


However, it might be noted that "free-range" can mean a variety of different things. The above example looks like a pretty healthy chicken farm, but there reportedly have been examples of farms abusing the term "free-range". http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0820/n228/18523873/p1/article.jhtml is a well-known expose on free-range farming that was published by Vegetarian Times in 1996.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

Are there any relevant differences that affect the kind of or extent of those rights?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Are there any relevant differences that affect the kind of or extent of those rights?

Yes. In our Bill of Rights, there is listed the right to own a firearm. This obviously would not apply to a chicken.

However, the concept that we are to be free from harm as possible applies equally well to a variety of species.

 

[hitssquad]

Relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection

I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

Was the relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection established?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes. In our Bill of Rights, there is listed the right to own a firearm. This obviously would not apply to a chicken.

However, the concept that we are to be free from harm as possible applies equally well to a variety of species.

So there are differences in rights depending on the animal. Have you put any effort into defining precisely what rights apply to what animals and why (and perhaps when)?

 

[honestrosewater]

What this all boils down to is that I do not see any significant or relevant difference to the different types of pains and pleasures. They are all subjective experiences that have (positive and/or negative) values, and there is no apparent use in dividing among "physical"/"psychological", complex/simple, or anything of the nature, except to note that it is harder to decipher some experiences than it is to decipher others through observation.

Are you opposed to vaccinations? I ask for two reasons. First, I think that "pain and pleasure" could be better characterized as "the pain/pleasure scale" or something similar. I think that sensations can be qualitatively ordered; I perceive a difference between a needle prick and a debilitating disease.
Second, there is something that seems to have been overlooked- foresight. Because I percieve a difference between a needle prick and a debilitating disease, and consider the disease to be worse, I would suffer the needle to avoid the disease. Thus I think the qualitative ordering is significant and relevant.
You have already mentioned the subjectivity of pain and pleasure, and the difficulty in inferring them objectively. But I think this difficulty is not a matter of human and nonhuman animals, or of only strict "physical" observation. Animals can have psychological and social reasons for intentionally hiding their pain and pleasure; to avoid embarrasment or save face, for instance. There is also the problem of actually making the observation. Like asking, "Can I ask you a question?", the observation itself may cause pain- how are you to discover? Living is an interaction with your environment, and, if your environment includes other nervous systems, any interaction is possibly a painful one. I don't think a person can live without running the risk of causing pain- their own or another's- that's life. (Don't you hate it when people say that? ;) However, minimizing pain is still an option, and, to me, it is the right option. But what does eating meat have to do with causing pain?
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[turin]

There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

This seems to be the popular quote of the day. I will come right out and say that I disagree with this. I will initially coment on the fact that the body delegating such rights happens to be exclusively of the human animal species (as far as I can tell, though I may be a bit suspicious of some of the veggie-eaters on this board ). That, in itself, I hold to be of the utmost relevance.

I do not allow cockroaches to roam my apartment freely; I have not problem squashing them whenever I see them; I feel no moral confliction; they are not human, and, as most humans, I do not deem them appropriate for apartment life. Perhaps someday the tables will turn and the cockroaches will be squashing people who live in their garbage cans. Or perhaps even the Earth is a giant intergalactic garbage can for a superior alien race who will return some day and decide that we have infested it. I don't believe that we could make a good argument to the superior race that we have the right to live in their garbage can. I've never heard a good argument from a cockroach. I would make similar arguments for other "bugs," weeds, and such.

This begs the question (at least in my mind): which other species, then, besides humans, are deserving of indistinquishable rights from humans? All of them? If there are species of life excluded from the list, then there must be a criterion.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Was the relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection established?

Yes. It was established through establishing that they are sentient (having subjective experiences).

The most basic protections apply to every sentient creature:
Except in cases where one's actions would be harmful to others, and must thus be restricted, or in which a somewhat harmful action yields stronger benefits, freedom from bodily and psycholigical harm and inflicted death. These entail in highly mobile or communicative creatures freedom of action.

Rather than sit down and draw out a list of rights for each individual creatures, the most reasonable way to go is to understand that creatures deserve consideration, realize a basic set of interests (and the related considerations) of all or most sentient creatures, and then from there take things on a case-by-case basis where complications arise.

Are you opposed to vaccinations?

Of course not, for the very reason that you said that you would suffer the needle prick. It would be dumb to only consider the immediate or first effects of an action, but all the effects, including those 125 years down the road. This is consistent with treating pleasure and pain as the values--pleasure and pain not just now, but also in the future.

This seems to be the popular quote of the day. I will come right out and say that I disagree with this. I will initially coment on the fact that the body delegating such rights happens to be exclusively of the human animal species (as far as I can tell, though I may be a bit suspicious of some of the veggie-eaters on this board ). That, in itself, I hold to be of the utmost relevance.

All that shows is that we are of superior intelligence and communicating ability, which are irrelevant. The relevant criterion to whether or not an organism deserves protection is whether or not it can experience.

It doesn't matter that we are smarter. Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No.

 

[russ_watters]

It doesn't matter that we are smarter. Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No.

Whoa, back up a sec: does a menally handicapped person have the same rights as a person who isn't? Think about that for a minute.

And that's even setting aside the issue of how do we know what animals (or, say, a person in a coma) experience if we can't communicate with them...

 

[turin]

Dissident Dan,
I did not imply anything regarding the intelligence of the delegating body. The implication was more to the point of immediacy. For instance, I do not hold the members of the US congress to be more intelligent than the members of some Polynesian tribe (and probably I would hold to the contrary, but that's beside the point). However, one could argue that the members of the US congress should be more concerned with American affairs than with Polynesian afairs. For one thing, the members of the US congress are in fact American, so it just seems more appropriate to me. For another thing, the Polynesian tribe has organized itself for its own governmental purposes.

Why am I discussing politics? Because this is where I categorize the issue of whether or not to eat meat. I believe that humanity is a relevant issue for the basis of moral descrimination in the same sense that American citizenship is a relevant issue for the basis of protection under the law, taxation and such.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Whoa, back up a sec: does a menally handicapped person have the same rights as a person who isn't? Think about that for a minute.

And that's even setting aside the issue of how do we know what animals (or, say, a person in a coma) experience if we can't communicate with them...

The smarter ones are afforded different rights and privileges, but that is not to say that the mentally-handicapped have none at all. What I was saying that intelligence doesn't matter in the yes or no question of whether we have rights, not the extent to which those rights exist. Obviously, you do not let a person with the intelligence of a dog drive a car.

I communicate with my dogs often throughout the day. I didn't say that we can't communicate with them. I said that we have greater communication skills.

 

[turin]

Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No.

Why not? That's your opinion. The only reason that I believe those opinions have ever held up is the strength in numbers, and lesser intelligent beings tend to greatly out-number and thus physically overpower those of greater intelligence.

 

[russ_watters]

The smarter ones are afforded different rights and privileges, but that is not to say that the mentally-handicapped have none at all. What I was saying that intelligence doesn't matter in the yes or no question of whether we have rights, not the extent to which those rights exist. Obviously, you do not let a person with the intelligence of a dog drive a car.

So clearly, what rights we and the animals get is a complicated question. Have you worked out yet specifically what rights which animals get and why?

And backing up again...

The relevant criterion to whether or not an organism deserves protection is whether or not it can experience.

If I kill an animal by shooting it in the head, it will experience nothing out of the ordinary right up until the instant of death. If I give an animal an OD of morphine it will experience intense pleasure until it loses consciousness and dies.

So therefore, giving an animal an OD of morphine is a good thing to do morally and shooting one in the head has no moral implications, positive or negative, whatsoever. Right?

 

[turin]

russ_waters,
Even if what you do to an organism does not cause negative experience, I believe one could make a swift argument that, by terminating the existence of an entity, and thus probably terminating its ability to experience, you are eliminating any potential future good experience, and that should be weighed together with life-expectancy and such.

 

[hitssquad]

Global hedonics redux

Was the relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection established?

Yes. It was established through establishing that they are sentient (having subjective experiences).

The concept of deservingness (meritoriousness, worthiness) does not have anything intrinsically to do with sentience. This thread revolves around the concept of inalienable deservingness. Was the relevance of the concept of inalienable deservingness established?

 

[Averagesupernova]

russ_waters,
Even if what you do to an organism does not cause negative experience, I believe one could make a swift argument that, by terminating the existence of an entity, and thus probably terminating its ability to experience, you are eliminating any potential future good experience, and that should be weighed together with life-expectancy and such.

Turin, I am not necessarily singling you out, just want to make a point. Isn't it a little rediculous to use the argument of possibly elimintating a potential future good experience here? First of all, 'good experience' is a matter of opinion. And if we all thought that way we wouldn't lock people in prison because we might eliminate a possilbe future 'good experience'.

I place a certain amount of value on life in general, but when we all start thinking like dissident dan we will have to change the laws so that given a choice of hitting a dog or a pedestrian with a vehicle in an accident (it HAS happened) we could choose to hit the human being and save the dog with no consequences.

 

[Dissident Dan]

So clearly, what rights we and the animals get is a complicated question. Have you worked out yet specifically what rights which animals get and why?

So therefore, giving an animal an OD of morphine is a good thing to do morally and shooting one in the head has no moral implications, positive or negative, whatsoever. Right?

Read turin's response.

The concept of deservingness (meritoriousness, worthiness) does not have anything intrinsically to do with sentience. This thread revolves around the concept of inalienable deservingness. Was the relevance of the concept of inalienable deservingness established?

Well, experience is the only the of instrinsic value. To be ethical, one should give consideration to things of value. Because sentient creatures have intrinsic value (indeed, the only intrinsic value), if anything deserves consideration, they do.

If these creatures deserve consideration, then, ethically, we should give them that consideration. If we give them due consideration, we will see that it is unjustified to eat them under normal circumstances.

 

[hitssquad]

Sentience quantity or quality

Well, experience is the only [thing] of instrinsic value.

It seems that we have yet to establish that anything can be intrinsically valuable.

But if sentience (as the readiness to experience) is to be taken as our most valued thing, as with any valued thing in general, we must then decide what balance of quantity and quality of sentience we wish to strive for. To maximize quantity, at one extreme we might maximize the total population of sentient fundaments (individual sentient creatures) without consideration as to quality of that sentience. To do this, we would have to decide where sentience begins and ends. As this author pointed out before, we have yet to establish that a threshold for sentience exists below which plants must surely fall. And if plants instead turn out to possesses some rudimentary level of sentience (that cannot be discretely separated from that of animals), then perhaps rocks and astronomical objects also possesses some even-more rudimentary -- but, importantly, still existent and not discretely separable from those of plants and animals -- levels of sentience.

And if, at the other extreme, we decided to maximize quality, to effect this we might rank sentience (again, capacity to experience) among classes of sentient fundaments (creatures). For ranking purposes, we might equate sentience with general intelligence, or with the psychological construct known as field independence, or with some general factor of sentience that might be a distillation of intelligence and field independence, the latter two perhaps being its next-most-important primary factors. Maximizing quality of sentience might then involve launching a sentience-amplification campaign, of which Raymond Cattell's Beyondism might be viewed as an appropriate example. Population strategy would then ultimately follow from the primary goal of producing creatures sentiently higher.


But, on this note, as the philosopher James R. Flynn has observed:

• If all that matters is producing a higher species, one a quantum leap beyond our own in terms of intelligence and scientific expertise, it should make no difference who they are, or what they are, or where they are. Cattell says we should liquidate our own species in favor of a higher one. If a higher species visited Earth and needed our space, would he [Cattell] say we ought to conspire in our own demise? There would be no biological continuity between humanity and them, but surely that is morally irrelevant. They would have done us the favor of providing a short cut to our goal: we could make way for them now rather than wait thousands of years to evolve into something like them.

 

[turin]

Isn't it a little rediculous to use the argument of possibly elimintating a potential future good experience here?

No.

... 'good experience' is a matter of opinion.

I disagree. There is a difference between opinion and introspection. Good experience is a matter of introspection. There is no distinction between subjectivity and objectivity in this case because it is inherently self-contained and not subject to empiricism of any kind that I can think of.

And if we all thought that way we wouldn't lock people in prison because we might eliminate a possilbe future 'good experience'.

You are oversimplifying. I believe incarceration supports the argument that I posted. It may eliminate a certain amount of future good experience for the prisoner, but the idea is to prevent future bad experience for the rest of society. It's a trade-off, and that is the basis for the system.

... when we all start thinking like dissident dan we will have to change the laws so that given a choice of hitting a dog or a pedestrian with a vehicle in an accident (it HAS happened) we could choose to hit the human being and save the dog with no consequences.

I'm not so sure this should be linked to Dissident Dan, but, at any rate, so what? Why should a human always receive preferential treatment? I don't think that I would ever chose to hit a person with my car for the simple reason of avoiding a dog, but I can think of reasons that I would want to hit a person with my car. I don't believe I would ever want to hit a dog with my car.

 

[pace]

Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1823 :

The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor.* It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Also animals have to eat 21kg(42 pounds) of proteins to get 1kg proteins in their meat. So 90% of the world's protein are lost in this way. (from Frances Moore's Diet for a small planet p. 4-11)

The cruelty are admitted only when the profitability is over. - Ruth Harrison

 

[russ_watters]

Read turin's response.

russ_waters,
Even if what you do to an organism does not cause negative experience, I believe one could make a swift argument that, by terminating the existence of an entity, and thus probably terminating its ability to experience, you are eliminating any potential future good experience, and that should be weighed together with life-expectancy and such.

So in order to decide if a living thing has a right to life, we have to weigh the potential for good/bad experiences? Well, ok - in the animal kingdom, animals typically have short lives with brutal deaths...

For humans, Americans and westerners have far and away a higher standard of living than those in Africa, middle east, and Asia. So you're saying that an American has more of a right to life than an African?

Heck, even if you want to argue the nebulous concept of "experiences," humans far and away have more/better than the animals for obvious reasons (my cat will never earn enough money to buy a decent car, nor even get to read Shakespeare).

Dan, this is the theory of rights you buy into? That's pretty sick. You guys think that giving rights to animals brings them up to the level of humans. In reality, your line of reasoning is reducing humans to the level of animals. We are better and you guys (even if you don't want to admit it) know it.

Guys, you really need to read some theory of rights. Humans don't have rights subjectively based on the value others measure in their lives (actually, Dan, now I'm starting to realize why you think slavery is relevant here: that's part of its justification).

Humans have rights because they are human.

That's the fundamental axiom on which human rights are based.

Good experience is a matter of introspection.

Which animals have this capacity? I thought we already covered the fact that a housecat does not have the capacity to understand that an immunization is a good thing. Children don't have the same rights as adults for precisely this reason.

Why should a human always receive preferential treatment? I don't think that I would ever chose to hit a person with my car for the simple reason of avoiding a dog, but I can think of reasons that I would want to hit a person with my car. I don't believe I would ever want to hit a dog with my car.

Wow. That's pretty sick. Now you're saying that animals are better than humans. Again, humans are different/better than animals and you guys know it.

This question remains unanswered:

Have you worked out yet specifically what rights which animals get and why?

You have directly acknowledged that different humans get different rights: Extend it to animals.

For example, would any animals get the right to vote? (btw, driving is a privelege, not a right). A dolphin can punch a ballot sheet and a chimp can do sign language. Should they get the right to vote? Why or why not?

 

[russ_watters]

Its much needed, so I'm going to start linking this thread to the philosophy of rights as seen by those who created our modern version. Its important and I don't think you guys have ever seen it (and I need a refresher).

What you guys are describing is actually very similar to Hobbes idea in Leviathan, the first major, modern, western work on rights (1651). http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/242/242-sup-hobbes.htm is a synopsis.

Everyone in the state of nature has the right to anything that they take to be beneficial to them.

This sounds like it is the driving concept behind the ideas expressed in this thread. Problem: the "state of nature" is anarchy. From Leviathan:

...the life of man [in the state of nature would be] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

As a matter of fact, that is very much like life in the animal kingdom is and very much the way life was for humans before civilizations arose.

Hobbes believed that the way to get out of the "state of nature" was through a "social contract" - constitutions of democratic nations are a form of this. Here's where Hobbes starts to differ from more modern interpretations - he says natural rights only exist in the "state of nature" -

When people entered into a social contract, they gave up almost all natural rights in exchange for the security offered by the sovereign [ruler].

To some extent, rights are given up in exchange for security in modern goverments, however what Hobbes doesn't include is the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of the citizens or that humans fundamentally have rights. The only right he identifies as a requirement to keep is the right to defend your life (notice: that is not the same as the right to life itself).

Again, Hobbes is the earliest form of modern rights and our theories have evolved somewhat since then, but I think this is enough for now.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I have read enough Hobbes, Locke, and the like. I am challenging the traditional view, so why would I necessarily accept what some prejudiced person from centuries ago said?

I do not buy into the "Humans have rights because they are human." line. It is still subject to the question, "Why?", as I mentioned in a previous post.

Not only would it be cumbersome to determine the value of individuals' lives, but in most cases impossible, and it would inevitably result in resentment. The only viable solution is to afford equality of treatment when the differences are not too great or not known or when acknowledging differences would result in resentment or other negative consequences.

Equality of consideration is key.

 

[russ_watters]

I have read enough Hobbes, Locke, and the like. I am challenging the traditional view, so why would I necessarily accept what some prejudiced person from centuries ago said?

Fair enough. In that case you really have a whole ton of work to do if you want to invent a new branch of philosophy. If you ever write a book though, I'll buy it.

I do not buy into the "Humans have rights because they are human." line. It is still subject to the question, "Why?", as I mentioned in a previous post.

I tend to agree, but...

Not only would it be cumbersome to determine the value of individuals' lives, but in most cases impossible...

The only viable solution is to afford equality of treatment when the differences are not too great or not known or when acknowledging differences would result in resentment or other negative consequences.

You just answered your own question: Since clearly we cannot judge quality of life, we must assume that life itself is sacrosanct. That is precisely why "humans have rights because they are human." The U.S. Declaration of Independence (more a philosophical statement than anything else) says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Self-evident."

What I am trying to impress upon you is that the differences between animals and humans make it not self-evident that the same rights should apply to them. Just saying the differences are irrelevant isn't enough: you could seriously fill a book with an analysis of the differences between humans and chimps that affect the way rights could be applied assuming we wanted to apply them.

 

[jimmy p]

I'm voting yes to meat. Handy now that in today's society it is such a big debate. The only reason we don't eat meat is because we have developed substitutes. Take technology back 150 years or so and I doubt anyone would debate this. We should eat meat because there are some chemicals that substitutes won't provide. Besides, our ancestors ate meat, they HUNTED for meat. But yes they also ate their greens as well, basically anything they can find. We arent omnivores because we don't eat detritus and stuff. I just think that meat IS an important part of the diet. If not then we would be herbivorous.

 

[Dissident Dan]

You just answered your own question: Since clearly we cannot judge quality of life, we must assume that life itself is sacrosanct. That is precisely why "humans have rights because they are human."

But being alive does not mean anything of moral significance. A bacterium is alive, but there is no moral signficance to what happens to it, precisely because it is not sentient. If we are going to make generalizations, it should be at the level of sentience, not life.

You made no justification for your leap from life being the criterion to being human being the criterion.

What I am trying to impress upon you is that the differences between animals and humans make it not self-evident that the same rights should apply to them. Just saying the differences are irrelevant isn't enough: you could seriously fill a book with an analysis of the differences between humans and chimps that affect the way rights could be applied assuming we wanted to apply them.

And you can fill a book with the differences between a man and his father. I have made my point several times. While the rights deemed appropriate for humans and chimpanzees might differ, the most basic protections--right to not have suffering unnecessarily inflicted or pleasure unnecessarily restricted--apply to both. As both have the ability to experience, both should have these protections.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Even without the idea of rights, the ethical argument against eating meat is sound.

1. Animals have the capacities for joy and for suffering
2. Modern animal production causes the animals great suffering
3. Suffering has negative value which is in proportion to the degree of suffering
4. Ethically, one should not knowingly cause conditions of large negative value
5. Therefore, it is not ethical to eat meat.

 

[hitssquad]

Tautologies and sound syllogisms

3. Suffering has negative value which is in proportion to the degree of suffering

This might be the case in a given system of ethics. Since any given thing might be commanded to have negative value in any given system of ethics, commanding it so, as part of a syllogism, does not make that syllogism a sound ethical argument for anything -- it just makes it a tautology.

4. Ethically, one should not knowingly cause conditions of large negative value

Negative ethical value, within any given system of ethics, is -- by definition -- unethical. Therefore, #4 is a tautology by itself.

 

[Dissident Dan]

This might be the case in a given system of ethics. Since any given thing might be commanded to have negative value in any given system of ethics, commanding it so, as part of a syllogism, does not make that syllogism a sound ethical argument for anything -- it just makes it a tautology.

Perhaps you hadn't joined the threat when I earlier made the case:

From post #228 on page 12
Why can we say that something is good or bad? On what basis? For pretty much everything you say, one can always ask, "Why?" with no end in sight. For example

-"Because they're human"-> "Why does that matter? (So?)"
-"It's not honorable"-> "Why not?"
-"Because it's your own kind"->"Why does that matter?"
-"Because we can reason"->"Why is that relevenat? (So?)"
-"Because god said so"->"Why does that matter?" or "Why did god?" (this is also based on pure faith)

However, there is one stopping point: Experience (pain and pleasure). We all know the goodness of the experience of pleasure and the badness of the experience of pain through experiencing them. This goodness and badness cannot be explained in words, because of the limits on language. Experience cannot be explained; we can only accept or assume a common experience and assign a label to it.

This is not to say that one can know that an event or action is good or bad because an experience "told me so." The experience cannot directly tell you external facts. What you can learn from the experience is the quality of the experience itself. The goodness of pleasure and the badness of pain are qualities of experience. Thus, you can know their goodness and badness.

This is not to say, "Seek out your own pleasure, and worry about nothing else". There is no reason to say that there is necessarily any more value in myself having an experience than some other being having the experience. Therefore, we must, if we are to be ethical (seeking to maximize goodness and minimize badness), consider the interests of all (sentient) beings. This only lays the basis of ethics, and leaves wide open the question of how to consider, protect, or optimize the interests of all, other than the fact that it must be consequentialist (which you could form a deontology with the understanding that the establishment of these deontological rules has positive consequences [how's that for a kick in the pants?]).

Negative ethical value, within any given system of ethics, is -- by definition -- unethical. Therefore, #4 is a tautology by itself.

I was just trying to be pretty explicit and clear. Having a million tautologies doesn't make an argument unsound (it would just make it exceedingly long).

 

[hitssquad]

Interspecies hedonics redux and rationally-derived global ethics laws

This might be the case in a given system of ethics.

Perhaps you hadn't joined the threat

I have read the entire thread.

when I earlier made the case:

What you made sounded like the Utilitarian hypothesis. That is why I labelled one of my posts (and it was one you replied to; #263) Interspecies hedonics.

From post #228 on page 12

Which page it is on depends upon the posts-per-page display settings in your user control panel. Post #228 of this thread is on page 6, for me.

Why can we say that something is good or bad?... there is one stopping point: Experience (pain and pleasure).

And if you could not think of any other answers, the one answer you thought of must be the one, universal Right Answer. There are world-class puzzle inventors who have been regularly shown alternate solutions to puzzles they had previously advertized as having only one solution. I have spent some time reading through the classic puzzle books, and have noticed quite a few of these "a reader informs me that in fact" cases.

Therefore, we must, if we are to be ethical

You failed to demonstrate that within the science of Ethics -- as opposed to within all other hard sciences -- there can be only one viable system in all possible milieus. Does the following make sense?:

• "Therefore, we must, if we are to be physical, assume that acceleration from gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared in all places and at all times."

Or

• "Therefore, we must, if we are to be chemical, assume that hydrogen dioxide is a liquid in all places and at all times."

 

[Dissident Dan]

What you made sounded like the Utilitarian hypothesis. That is why I labelled one of my posts (and it was one you replied to; #263) Interspecies hedonics.

My case was to establish what real values are, not to establish an entire framework within which to protect those values (which is where utilitarianism, deontology, and non-utilitarian consequentialism fall). As specific as I got was to say that the system must be consequentialist, which may be utilitarian or not. Utilitarian rests on the ability to trade values. I made no claim regarding whether trading should be done. I also don't see the close relationship between utilitarianism and hedonism that your post relies on.

And if you could not think of any other answers, the one answer you thought of must be the one, universal Right Answer. There are world-class puzzle inventors who have been regularly shown alternate solutions to puzzles they had previously advertized as having only one solution.

My claim was not just that there is no known other value, but that there cannot be, because anything other than relying on knowledge of experience logically leads to an ad infinitum, which means that there is no basis upon which the truth of the claim could rest.

At the very least, even if one doesn't accept experience as the sole value, accepting it as a value should be enough to warrant not eating meat. The intense negative experience inflicted upon billions of animals at any given time is unjustifiable, ethically.

You failed to demonstrate that within the science of Ethics -- as opposed to within all other hard sciences -- there can be only one viable system in all possible milieus.

What I said follows from the definition of ethics and the establishment of the value of experience.

 

[jimmy p]

i read somewhere that cows enjoy being slaughtered.